Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Burgos, Sr. vs. Chief of Staff, AFP PDF
Burgos, Sr. vs. Chief of Staff, AFP PDF
Burgos, Sr. vs. Chief of Staff, AFP PDF
*
No. L-64261. December 26, 1984.
_______________
* EN BANC.
801
802
legal abounds. The fact that he has used them as evidence does
not and cannot in any way affect the validity or invalidity of the
search warrants assailed in this petition.
Same; Typographical error in specifying the address to be
search not sufficient to invalidate a search warrant where the
address intended to be searched also appears on the face of the
warrant.—The defect pointed out is obviously a typographical
error. Precisely, two search warrants were applied for and issued
because the purpose and intent were to search two distinct
premises. It would be quite absurd and illogical for respondent
judge to have issued two warrants intended for one and the same
place. Besides, the addresses of the places sought to be searched
were specifically set forth in the application, and since it was Col.
Abadilla himself who headed the team which executed the search
warrants, the ambiguity that might have arisen by reason of the
typographical error is more apparent than real. The fact is that
the place for which Search Warrant No. 20-82[b] was applied for
was 728 Units C & D, RMS Building, Quezon Avenue, Quezon
City, which address appeared in the opening paragraph of the
said warrant. Obviously, this is the same place that respondent
judge had in mind when he issued Warrant No. 20-82 [b].
Same; Constitutional Law; Fact that some of the personal
properties seized do not belong to the person against whom a
search warrant was directed, not a sufficient ground to annul the
same.—The above rule (Sec. 1, Rule 126) does not require that the
property to be seized should be owned by the person against
whom the search warrant is directed. It may or may not be owned
by him. In fact, under subsection [b] of the above-quoted Section
2, one of the properties that may be seized is stolen property.
Necessarily, stolen property must be owned by one other than the
person in whose possession it may be at the time of the search
and seizure. Ownership, therefore, is of no consequence, and it is
sufficient that the person against whom the warrant is directed
has control or possession of the property sought to be seized, as
petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. was alleged to have in relation to the
articles and property seized under the warrants.
Same; Same; Property; Machinery bolted to the ground may be
seized under a search warrant if its owner is not the owner of the
land on which it has been placed for then it is classified as
movable property.—Neither is there merit in petitioners’ assertion
that real properties were seized under the disputed warrants.
Under Article 415[5] of the Civil Code of the Philippines,
“machinery, receptables,
803
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168a7b13382196ac389003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/23
2/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 133
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168a7b13382196ac389003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/23
2/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 133
804
the evidence gathered and collated by our unit clearly shows that
the premises above-mentioned and the articles and things above-
described were used and are continuously being used for
subversive activities in conspiracy with, and to promote the
objective of, illegal organizations such as the Light-a-Fire
Movement, Movement for Free Philippines, and April 6
Movement.”
Same; Same; The persons wearing to or supporting the
application for search warrants must know personally the facts.—
In mandating that “no warrant shall issue except upon probable
cause to be determined by the judge, x x x after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he
may produce; the Constitution requires no less than personal
knowledge by the com-plainant or his witnesses of the facts upon
which the issuance of a search warrant may be justified. In
Alvarez v. Court of First Instance, this Court ruled that “the oath
required must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal
knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses, because the purpose
thereof is to convince the committing magistrate, not the
individual making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of the
warrant, of the existence of probable cause.” As couched, the
quoted averment in said joint affidavit filed before respondent
judge hardly meets the test of sufficiency established by this
Court in Alvarez case.
Same; Same; A search warrant in the nature of a general
warrant is constitutionally objectionable.—In Stanford v. State of
Texas, the search warrant which authorized the search for ‘books,
records, pamphlets, cards, receipts, lists, memoranda, pictures,
recordings and other written instruments concerning the
Communist Parties of Texas, and the operation of the Communist
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168a7b13382196ac389003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/23
2/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 133
Party in Texas,” was declared void by the U.S. Supreme Court for
being too general. In like manner, directions to “seize any
evidence in connection with the violation of SDC 13-3703 or
otherwise” have been held too general, and that portion of a
search warrant which authorized the seizure of any
“paraphernalia which could be used to violate Sec. 54-197 of the
Connecticut General Statutes [the statute dealing with the crime
of conspiracy]” was held to be a general warrant, and therefore
invalid. The description of the articles sought to be seized under
the search warrants in question cannot be characterized
differently.
Same; Same; Closure of the premises of a news publishing
house constitutes a virtual denial of press freedom.—Such closure
is in the nature of previous restraint or censorship abhorrent to
the freedom of the press guaranteed under the fundamental law,
and constitutes a
805
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168a7b13382196ac389003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/23
2/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 133
806
clude that the warrants are general warrants which are obnoxious
to the Constitution.
Same; Same; There was nothing subversive in the seized
publications.—In point of fact, there was nothing subversive
published in the WE FORUM just as there is nothing subversive
which has been published in MALAYA which has replaced the
former and has the same content but against which no action has
been taken. Conformably with existing jurisprudence everything
seized pursuant to the warrants should be returned to the owners
and all of the items are subject to the exclusionary rule of
evidence.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168a7b13382196ac389003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/23
2/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 133
ESCOLIN, J.:
807
_______________
808
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168a7b13382196ac389003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/23
2/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 133
_______________
4 63 Phil. 275.
5 Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29.
809
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168a7b13382196ac389003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/23
2/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 133
________________
810
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168a7b13382196ac389003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/23
2/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 133
“Which have been used, and are being used as instruments and
means of committing the crime of subversion penalized under
P.D. 885 as amended and he is keeping and concealing the same
at 19 Road 3, Project 6, Quezon City.”
________________
7 The opening paragraph of Search Warrant No. 20-82 [b] reads: “It
appearing to the satisfaction of the undersigned after examination under
oath of Maj. Alejandro M. Gutierrez and Lt. Pedro U. Tango, that there
are good and sufficient reason to believe that Jose Burgos, Jr. Publisher-
Editor of ‘WE
811
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168a7b13382196ac389003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/23
2/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 133
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168a7b13382196ac389003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/23
2/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 133
812
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168a7b13382196ac389003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/23
2/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 133
_______________
9 61 Phil. 709.
10 Annex “C”, Petition, pp. 51-52, Rollo.
11 Annex “B”, Petition, pp. 53-54, Rollo.
813
_______________
814
_______________
815
16
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168a7b13382196ac389003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/23
2/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 133
16
In Stanford v. State of Texas, the search warrant which
authorized the search for ‘books, records, pamphlets, cards,
receipts, lists, memoranda, pictures, recordings and other
written instruments concerning the Communist Parties of
Texas, and the operations of the Community Party in
Texas,” was declared void by the U.S. Supreme Court for
being too general. In like manner, directions to “seize any
evidence in connection with the violation of SDC 13-3703 or
otherwise” have been held too general, and that portion of a
search warrant which authorized the seizure of any
“paraphernalia which could be used to violate Sec. 54-197
of the Connecticut General Statutes [the statute dealing
with the crime of conspiracy]” was17
held to be a general
warrant, and therefore invalid. The description of the
articles sought to be seized under the search warrants in
question cannot be characterized differently.
In the Stanford case, the U.S. Supreme Court calls to
mind a notable chapter in English history: the era of
disaccord between the Tudor Government and the English
Press, when “Officers of the Crown were given roving
commissions to search where they pleased in order to
suppress and destroy the
_______________
816
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168a7b13382196ac389003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/23
2/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 133
________________
817
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168a7b13382196ac389003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/23
2/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 133
_______________
818
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168a7b13382196ac389003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/23
2/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 133
reasons for holding that the search warrants which are the
subject of the petition are utterly void.
The action against WE FORUM was a naked
suppression of press freedom for the search warrants were
issued in gross violation of the Constitution.
The Constitutional requirement which is expressed in
Section 3, Article IV, stresses two points, namely: “(1) that
no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, to be
determined by the judge in the manner set forth in said
provision; and (2) that the warrant shall particularly
describe the things to be seized.” (Stonehill vs. Diokno, 126
Phil. 738, 747: 20 SCRA 383 [1967].)
Any search warrant is conducted in disregard of the
points mentioned above will result in wiping “out
completely one of the most fundamental rights guaranteed
in our Constitution, for it would place the sanctity of the
domicile and the privacy of communication and
correspondence at the mercy of the whims, caprice or
passion of peace officers.” (Ibid., p. 748.)
The two search warrants were issued without probable
cause. To satisfy the requirement of probable cause a
specific offense must be alleged in the application; abstract
averments will not suffice. In the case at bar nothing
specifically subversive has been alleged; stated only is the
claim that certain objects were being used as instruments
and means of committing the offense of subversion
punishable under P.D. No. 885, as amended. There is no
mention of any specific provision of the decree. In the words
of Chief Justice Concepcion, “It would be legal heresy, of
the highest order, to convict anybody” of violating the
decree without reference to any determinate provision
thereof.
The search warrants are also void for lack of
particularity.
819
——o0o——
820
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168a7b13382196ac389003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/23
2/1/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 133
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168a7b13382196ac389003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/23